第II章 言説の規則性


I am presented therefore with four attempts, four failures -- and four successive hypotheses. They must now be put to the test.
Concerning those large groups of statements with which we are so familiar -- and which we call medicine, economics, or grammar -- I have asked myself on what their unity could be based.

  • 十全で、精密な、連続した、地理的に截然とした、諸対象の一分野の上であろうか?
    • それらしく見えたのは、むしろ、空隙のある、錯綜したさまざまの系であり、差異、偏差、代替、変換などの働きである。
  • On a full, tightly packed, continuous, geographically well-defined field of objects?
    • What appeared to me were rather series full of gaps, intertwined with one another, interplays of differences, distances, substitutions, transformations.
  • 言表行為の明確で規範的な一つのの上ではなかろうか?
    • しかし、唯一の形象のうちに互いに結びつけ、組織しうるためには、また、個別的な作品の彼方に、時間を横切って、中断されざる一種の大きなテキストを仮にもつくってみるためには、あまりにも相異なったレヴェルをもつ定式化や、あまりにも異質的な諸機能を、私は見出してしまった。
  • On a definite, normative type of statement?
    • I found formulations of levels that were much too different and functions that were much too heterogeneous to be linked together and arranged in a single figure, and to simulate, from one period to another, beyond individual oevres, a sort of great uninterrupted text.
  • 諸観念のはっきり規定された一つのアルファベットの上であろうか?
    • しかし、構造により、使用の諸規則により異なり、互いに知らず、排除し合う、また、論理的建築のうちには入りえない、そういう諸概念に直面しているのである。
  • On a well-defined alphabet of notions?
    • One is con-fronted with concepts that differ in structure and in the rules govem-ing their use, which ignore or exclude one another, and which cannot enter the unity of a logical architecture.
  • 主題群の永続性の上にであろうか?
    • ところが、見出されるのはむしろ、さまざまに異なった戦術的可能性であり、これらによって、両立しがたいさまざまな主題が活動し、また、さらに、相異なったいくつかの総体のうちに同一の主題を托することが可能になるのである。
  • On the permanence of a thematic?
    • What one finds are rather various strategic possibilities that permit the activation of incompatible themes, or, again, the establishment of the same theme in different groups of statement.


Hence the idea of describing these dispersions themselves; of discovering whether, between these elements,
which are certainly not organized as a progressively deductive structure, nor as an enormous book that is being gradually and continuously written, nor as the ouvre of a collective subject,
one cannot discern a regularity:

  • それらの相つぐ出現のうちでの一つの秩序、
  • an order in their successive appearance,
  • それらの同時性のうちでの相関関係、
  • correlations in their simultaneity,
  • 一個の共通な空間中での指示しうる位置、
  • assignable positions in a common space,
  • 相互作用、結びつきのある、階層化されたさまざまな変換、
  • a reciprocal functioning, linked and hierarchized transformations.


Such an analysis would
not try to isolate small islands of coherence in order to describe their internal structure;
it would not try to suspect and to reveal latent conflicts; it would
study forms of division.


Or again:
instead of reconstituting chains of inference (as one often does in the history of the sciences or of philosophy) ,
instead of drawing up tables of differences (as the linguists do),
it would describe systems of dispersion.


  • いくつかの言表の間にかような分散の体系が記述されうる場合には、
  • 諸々の対象、言表の類型、概念、主題の選択、などの間に、一個の規則性(さまざまな相関関係、位置、作用、変換に関する一つの秩序)が明確化されうる場合には、
  • Whenever one can describe, between a number of statements, such a system of dispersion,
  • whenever, between objects, types of statement, concepts, or thematic choices, one can define a regularity (an order, correlations, positions and functionings, transformations) ,
    we will say, for the sake of convenience, that we are dealing with a discursive formation
    -- thus avoiding words that are already overladen with conditions and consequences, and in any case inadequate to the task of designating such a dispersion, such as 'science', 'ideology', 'theory', or 'domein of objectivity'.
  • この配分の諸要素(対象、言表行為の態様、概念、主題の選択など)が従属する諸条件は、〈形成=編制の規則〉と呼ばれよう
  • The condition to which the elements of this division (objects, mode of statement, concepts, thematic choices) are subjected we shall call the rules of formation.
  • 形成=編制の規則は、与えられた一言説の或る配分における、存在の(のみならず、共存、保存、変容、消滅などの)諸条件である。
  • The rules of formation are conditions of existence (but also of coexistence, maintenance, modificatin, and disappearance) in a given discusive division.